It was recently observed that Ron Paul was to the left of Obama on national security and the best evidence for that statement can be found when one year ago Ron Paul joined forces with Barney Frank​ on a proposal to gut national defense via a panel of experts, quite a few of whom were tied to George Soros​.

In July 2010, Barney Frank and Ron Paul co-authored a Huffington Post article rolling out their Sustainable Defense Task Force. The Task Force consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum would recommend a trillion dollars in defense cuts. The experts, however, didnt quite span the ideological spectrum  more like float under it.

The panel of experts who would decide how to best gut national defense featured such independent thinkers as William D. Hartung of the New America Foundation. Hartungs main expertise was appearing in Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire.

Then there was Lawrence J. Kolb of the Center for American Progress and Miriam Pemberton of the Institute for Policy Studies. If you want to know what the Center, the Foundation and the Institute all have in common, its Hungarian and smells like stale cabbage and the death of nations.

The rather creepy Institute for Policy Studies issued a paper proposing that Obama act as king and rule through executive orders. The New American Foundation is not only backed by Soros but has his son on its leadership council. The Center for American Progress is run by the co-chair of Obamas transition team and is, for all intents and purposes, the think tank of the White House. All three are Soros funded.

But it doesnt end there. Also on the panel was Christopher Hellman of the National Priorities Project (NPP). If you are wondering what the NPP is, its a think tank whose objective is to influence national spending priorities. And if youre in the mood for a double, Miriam Pemberton is also on the board of the NPP. The man behind the curtain at NPP? None other than our favorite Hungarian James Bond villain.

Going further down the list theres Winslow Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information (CDI). The CDIs goal is to strengthen national and international security through international cooperation [and] reduced reliance on unilateral military power to resolve conflict. CDI operates under the aegis of the World Security Institute, which is apparently the least creepy name they could think of. Wheeler is a Counterpunch contributor, a site which even Stalinists think goes a bit too far. CDI gets money from the Open Society Institute (OSI) where the stench of death and stale cabbage never goes away.

Then theres Charles Knight and Carl Conetta of the Project for Defense Alternatives, which appears to be a subset of the Commonwealth Institute. Of its board of directors, S.M. Miller is also the founder of United for a Fair Economy which enjoys generous support from a certain philanthropic chap who occasionally destroys economies for sport. Another member, Guy Molyneux, has also worked with OSI. A third board member, Richard Healey, was formerly director of the Institute for Policy Studies and is on the advisory board of the Center for Social Inclusion, founded by two OSI veterans.

If you think this cant get any worse, meet Paul Kawika Martin of Peace Action (PA). You might know PA better by its old name, the Committee for a SANE Nuclear Policy or just SANE, a Communist front group investigated by none other than Senator Thomas Dodd. PA has the same attitude toward American defense that burglars have toward alarm systems in other peoples homes. They dont like them very much. And they have a five year strategic plan for the job.

Paul Kawika Martin travels around fighting progress on board The Rainbow Warrior and is also involved with Physicians for Social Responsibility. Martin has also collaborated with the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a front for the Iranian regime. I think you can guess by now who funds Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Also on the task force is Laicie Olson of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. The Center is actually a subset of the Council for a Livable World. Olson originally worked for Physicians for Social Responsibility. Another task force member was Heather Hurlburt of the National Security Network (NSN). The NSNs goals are to build a strong progressive national security and counter conservative spin. Its founder was part of Obamas transition team and resigned to work for Janet Napolitano. Soross OSI helped fund NSN, and its Special Counsel was on the NSN Policy Committee. If youre tired of reading through all this, then heres the summary. Of the Paul-Frank Task Force, 9 out of 14 members were linked to Soross organs. Two were affiliated with the Cato Institute. One is indeterminate. Ron Paul proposed to put a bunch of Soros-funded think tank experts in charge of dismantling the US military. Think about that for a moment. Ron Paul supporters can see conspiracies in a glass of water; can they see anything wrong with this picture? Can they see anything wrong with having a man from a group that was investigated for its Communist ties in the drivers seat on national defense? The task forces proposals included cutting nuclear deterrence; reducing the fleet by 57 ships, including two carriers; canceling the Joint Strike Fighter; severely curtail missile defense  and that is a direct quote from the report  retiring four Marine battalions; reducing the military by 200,000 personnel; cutting defense research spending by 50 billion over ten years; and increasing health care fees for members of the military. Not only did Paul join forces with Barney Frank to slash military preparedness, but he ended up putting the experts of a foreign billionaire with global ambitions in charge of the project. And that was what he did as a congressman. Can anyone imagine what he would do as president?

But why would Ron Paul allow George Soros that much power and influence over Americas defense policy? There are a number of possibilities. There is the possibility that Ron Paul just didnt know and didnt bother to do his research. Which is not much of a recommendation for the job hes running for. Theres another possibility that Ron Paul knew and didnt care, that he had no objection to being part of a left-right alliance against the American Empire with Soros. But theres also a third possibility. During the previous election, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq (AAEI) ran an ad praising Ron Paul for his position against the war. AAEI was an umbrella group for MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress, SEIU, Americans United For Change, the National Security Network and others in the progressive bestiary. A number of those beasties were Soros groups. Im not one to dabble in conspiracy theories, but when Soros pays for an ad praising you during the Republican primaries and then you put his experts in charge of Americas defense policy, then maybe some questions should be asked.

One could argue the GOP propping up a RINO like Romney deserves all the misery another term of Obama would bring - and that is quite likey to happen, sad to say. People are disgusted with the Grand Ole Party, to say the least...bunch of freakin’ corrupt politicians with nobody’s interest other than their own pocketbooks.

BTW, how did the founding fathers envision a local militia defending against Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles?

Probably the same way they fought undeclared wars against France (the quasi war) and later the Barbary Pirates. Built a defence, in their case create a Navy, reestablish the USMC, and take the fight to the enemy. In Frances case off their coast and the Carribean, the pirates in the Mediterranean. Both wars fought by the founders, undeclared, and fought over trade far from America. Taking the fight to the enemy is an old American tradition, not always followed. And sometimes we make mistakes, which are unrelated to the Constitution or the founders as paulestinians would have us believe.

BTW, how did the founding fathers envision a local militia defending against Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles?

Do we not currently have defensive forces, stationed inside the boundaries of the country to take care of that? Do you think Ron Paul has a problem with the military as present within our own borders? If and when our enemies should ever undertake to put boots on the ground over here . . . well . . let's hope to God our guns have not been confiscated by then, because by then we should have had the blessing of federal powers to assemble and train militias for just such a thing.

BTW, how did the founding fathers envision a local militia defending against Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles? Do we not currently have defensive forces, stationed inside the boundaries of the country to take care of that?

Only with THOUSANDS of OFFENSIVE strategic ballistic missiles. There still is NO OTHER DEFENSE. The ABM sites in Alaska can't handle but a few missiles from such as North Korea. So again, that's a THREAT to other nations. Not a latent militia defense force from the 18th century that is no threat to anyone. Mutually Assured destruction is the policy of the USA right now, and that has worked so far, even though it tends to encourage enemies to "strike first" if they are worried about our stability.

Do you think Ron Paul has a problem with the military as present within our own borders?

He certainly has a problem with the pentagon's budget, mission and scope. Maybe he likes the soldiers though.

If and when our enemies should ever undertake to put boots on the ground over here . . . well . . let's hope to God our guns have not been confiscated by then, because by then we should have had the blessing of federal powers to assemble and train militias for just such a thing.

Actually, spot on that I should mention Killeen. Enemy boots on the ground (just two boots) INSIDE Fort Hood...where ALL these Paul-Approved defensive soldiers who would protect us are stationed...and they are not allowed to carry guns. 13 dead, 29 injured.

Hey! Let's do math!

If there were 21,000 Major Hassan's that our enemies wanted to put boots on our defensive Army bases, well you can calculate 882,000 casualties....decimating the entire active and reserve Army corps.

There's a lot more we can do than to fold our military up as Paul seems to want.

Kinda wondering myself how the founding fathers envisioned dealing with countries that could move nuclear subs off our shores and bomb us everywhere. Put missiles in Cuba and wipe out the east coast.

How the figured that the middle east could control our national interest with their oil reserves, and how another country like china or russia could put more money or manpower on the ground, control those reserves and actually bring us to a standstill over night.

Oh wait a minute .. THEY DIDN’T!

56
posted on 01/03/2012 4:36:19 PM PST
by Munz
(All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)

Defenses against potential enemies do not necessarily have to be set up in 700 places around the globe. Our forefathers were not blind to threats from foreign entities. While they may not have envisioned modern warfare, they certainly did not envision build a worldwide empire as if the whole world was waiting with open arms for Western ideals.

Only with THOUSANDS of OFFENSIVE strategic ballistic missiles. There still is NO OTHER DEFENSE. So again, that's a THREAT to other nations. (The ABM sites in Alaska can't handle but a few missiles from such as North Korea. )

There. I rearranged for better clarity! The thousands of offensive missiles are a threat. Mutually Assured Destruction is a threat.

And some argue that a completely effective missile defense shield is also in effect a threat because it makes the enemy vulnerable to a first strike without being able to retaliate. It shifts the balance of MAD.

Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.  Ronald Reagan

60
posted on 01/03/2012 5:30:02 PM PST
by IrishPennant
(We don't want to work so we go to work to make enough money not to work...Huh?)

It has little to do with having a “world wide empire” but more to do with having boots on the ground, making friends, being there in person. Showing unity when requested as we are in many countries (at their request) - to keep others at bay.

If we fail to do that, then they will succumb to influences that are totally against our interests.

61
posted on 01/03/2012 5:34:45 PM PST
by Munz
(All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)

Yes murder still happens, rape still happens, lets all make those laws go away too ARF.

FRIGGING IDIOTS

yea right so in the nut case land of Ron [paul and his loons who follow him then we’ll make all drugs legal, let drug houses open next to schools and hell why should Govt decide who can take drugs, if the 16 year old wants to then why not.

Yes that is the world where the lunatics of Ron Paul want to be, on top of marrying siblings because Govt should not get involved and hell Paul said in the 2008 debate that he would get rid of the CIA, FBI.

[Paul is a nut, he is not a republican, he is not a conservative , he is more left than some liberals and many Dems on social and foreign issues and should not be allowed to use the GOP platform for his own lunacy.

Let him run on the libertarian ticket and see where he goes then.
Liberals who want to have all drugs legal, marry their siblings,and don’t want to pay taxes.

And they wonder why the majority think they are lunatics.

62
posted on 01/03/2012 5:44:55 PM PST
by manc
(Marriage is between one man and one woman.Trolls get a life, I HATE OUR BIAS LIBERAL MEDIA.)

BUT all our interventions prior to 1898 were short lasted, with the exceptions of the War of 1812 and the Mexican War, which were fought with neighboring countries and involved both protecting our existing land borders and expanding them (unsuccessfully with British ruled Canada, successfully with Mexico). We did not engage in nation building or regime changes. With the exception of West Germany and Japan, our nation building attempts have been failures. The Germans and Japanese are/were industrial nations with a large, well-educated and basically secular oriented middle class. The Muslim Middle East and Southeast Asia are not that way.

With a national debt of $16 trillion, almost incalculable unfunded government and private debt, a declining industrial base, and the worst educational system of any Western democracy, the United States cannot sustain the international role it has for 70 years. Irrespective of Ron Paul's unrealistic vision, this nation will need several decades to rebuild the sort of power needed to become preeminent once again. We have tried to provide guns and butter. Given the choice, the electorate will likely choose the latter. Realistically, the government will be able to provide neither sooner than later.

The Barbary war was far from short, at 15 or so years our longest till now unless you split it up. And while most of our actions were in the hemisphere, we fought the French and Brits at a distance, Spanish too, and none our neighbors. By the civil war you could find a dozen or so actions in the South Pacific and Africa unrelated to the Brits. I’m a manifest destiny guy, love Polk, so I won’t argue the “defending our borders” thing, they were fluid. What I was addressing was the frequent Paul supporter contension that the founders didn’t fight foreign or undeclared wars, which you clearly didn’t raise. Nation building, different issue. Worked in Europe and Japan, but we paid a heck of a price both in totally desstroying our enemies, then rebuilding them. We’ve done neither in recent conflicts. Can’t disagree with your economic assessment, faced with a threat we might have to opt for more hurt on the enemy, less nation building. Not sure we disagree on all that much.

Yes. I would hope we can develop both defensive and offesive capabilities that are staged closer to home, yet highly effective on a global basis. The idea being a light footprint out there, with keen eyes everywhere. Munz is on the right track insofar as a presence is desirable. IMO that presence should be predominantly diplomatic as opposed to military. We’re not far from being able to strike on an exceedingly quick, effective basis over tremendous distances. I do not think our forefathers, or Ron Paul, would have any problem with that.

Staging troops and materiel all over the world? If anything, that notion deserves constant analysis for two reasons: It is expensive, and it has a tendency to rub certain peoples the wrong way. There truly is no harm in recognizing and strategically addressing the manifest differences between the West and other peoples.

If by setting up shop you mean Sharia Law as the Law of the Land, that would be philosophically impossible without overthrowing our Constitution. They'd have to do that by force, and a I guarantee you *nobody* on the Republican ticket would accept that, let alone Democratic.

As for enclaves where Muslims are permitted to practice their faith with all it's implications, our Constitution does not make an exception in the Establishment clause.That's something of a conundrum if the aim and intent of the Muslim faith at its core is world domination by way of a set of rules other than we've established here. That seems to be the case for a good many of them. I would prefer they stay away from our borders.

Saudi’s asked for our aid. That is what pissed off Bin laden.
We naturally sent aid. Bin Laden declared war on us.

Were we to say no to the Saudis, then our oil supply would have gone down the tubes. Iraq was all over them. Bin Laden wanted to protect Arabia with the mujahadeen.

meanwhile, the real reason that islam has attacked us, has nothing .. REPEAT NOTHING to do with us being attacked is simply because it is all about their religion to do so. They are looking for a new caliphate to ensure world domination. That includes us. Taking oil supplies would certainly be part of it.
Sharia law would be part of it.

Having their ‘religion’ treated as a religion is all part of it, yet t is not a religion because it comes with it’s own laws that are above the constitution and they are not in line with the constitution because they infringe upon the rights of others unlike other religions. These are things that Ron Paul does not understand or does not want to understand.

As far as keeping boots on the ground, Special Forces soldiers have been used for years as insurgents - in small numbers, building churches schools, hospitals, small villages, whatever the locals needed. Helped train militias and then made them friends that could help keep them on our side rather than be easily turned against us.

That is why Russia was defeated in Afghanistan. We used this successfully against them. Unfortunately - we left too much in place and pulled out again (much like what Paul is saying we should do now) left on their own, they ended up being turned and used against us.

This would happen again. But people do not want to look at that and just see what history has taught us.

When I hear people tell me that Paul says that we are attacked because we occupied their lands I can’t help but wonder what lands we occupied in 1786 when Muslims attacked us the first time. It is BS. They attack us and hold our people for ransom and kill our people because that is =what they are commanded to do by the prophet and the prophet was told to do it by their god allah.

That is what it is. There is no peace except for 10 year false peace with them while they gather strength. It is called a tactical peace. Paul understands NOTHING about Islam and that is a big threat now. Especially now that Obama has tossed the middle east to the muslims.

Time to wake up. We need a strong presence anywhere we can get it, we need allies anywhere we can get them. We need to lock our boarders down and we need to secure our interests worldwide.

Obama has to go and the last thing we need is to have a guy in the white house who is telling the world that 9/11 was our fault!

67
posted on 01/03/2012 7:10:32 PM PST
by Munz
(All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)

The military has NOTHING to do with the debt.. What is spent on the military is mee pennies compared to other programs.

The military is the ONLY thing that is MANDATED to be funded, yet the foaming at the mouth paultards on here are quick to demand that the military be neutered.

The paultards sound like a bunch of codestink, international answer, demoncrapunderground treasoncrats with their constant demands that the military be cut.

Oh and before one of you closet treasoncrats label me as some “big government statist”, my plan for setting things straight goes far deeper than your village idiot’s plan.

For one, with exception of military funding everything gets cut back to FY1940 levels. Every agency that came about after 1940 would be eliminated.... That means no EPA, Dept of Education, DHS, TSA, etc, etc. all agencies that remain will be realigned to eliminate duplicate services, and they will be mandated to use the same accounting system that the military is currently using which accounts for every penny, and eliminates slush funds.

All of these various government commissions would be eliminated.

The Post Office would see their million dollar salary board of directors as well as their tax payer funded entourages fired.

I’d call for tort reform to end these frivilous medical malpractice lawsuits thus lowering the cost of healthcare.

I’d call for the elimination of public sector unions, as well as going after other unions (such as the UAW, and SEIU) under the RICO Act.

Taxes would be cut across the board.

I’d close all borders and fully overhaul the immigration system. I’d reimpliment Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback to round up and deport all those here illegally.

As far as congress, I’d call for term limits. No more than 2 terms for senators, and no more than 4 for congresscritters. And on top of that an immediate repeal of the 17th amendment. I’dalso call for a permanent ban for those leaving office from seeking jobs as lobbyists.

Thats just a fraction of the plan I have, and just what I posted goes further than what the village idiot from TX-14 says he would do.

71
posted on 01/03/2012 7:36:33 PM PST
by 2CAVTrooper
( For those who have had to fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected shall never know.)

Saudis asked for our aid. That is what pissed off Bin laden. We naturally sent aid. Bin Laden declared war on us.

In essence what you've tacitly admitted is that we kowtowed to foreign entities because we do not have the wherewithal to explore and make use of our own resources. Saudi Arabia asked for our aid? Why did we give it? It was not just our presence in Saudi Arabia that tweaked Bin Laden. Now he not only got our attention, but he also got us to expend billions and blood, chasing and building in sand lands like chickens with our heads cut off.

Our desire for vengeance has trumped our faculty for deliberation over the bigger picture. "Not to worry. A few extended zots will fix this." Our forefathers would be turning over in their graves if they saw our lack of sense, foresight, and tact when it comes to dealing with foreign powers, let alone our willingness to give up personal liberty for the sake of security.

If we had our act together domestically we could have told Saudi Arabia to go ahead and set their price for oil. If we feel so inclined we'll buy it. If they wanted to charge a steeper price than we cared to pay, we could have told them to pound sand. If we had the right eyes and ears on the ground over there we could have castrated the bastards who seek our demise before they could say "camel."

"mee pennies" add up. After entitlement programs and debt service, defense and foreign policy are number three in the Federal budget. There are also "black budget" items that go to non-military areas, such as the CIA and private contractors that are not going directly to the Department of Defense. The ongoing cost of health care and other services for veterans must be counted as well.

As for the military being the "ONLY thing that is MANDATED to be funded", the Federal government, through Congress, is also authorized to coin money, regulate international and interstate commerce, establish uniform rules on naturalization, and all the other powers outlined in Article I, Section 8. All these powers imply the authorization to fund and administer. The last sentence of Article I, Section 8 states, "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

All the items you have stated you would reform are good. However, most of them would do little to reduce the national debt. Tort reform and repeal of the 17th Amendment would do little to immediately change the picture. Abolishing Federal unions is a good idea, but they lack the power to strike, so they lack the leverage private sector unions have. The chances of cutting Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, ADC, and probably Obamacare, the biggest item in the Federal budget, are minimal. It is not called the "third rail" of American politics in vain. The United States also has a massive debt to service. Default is an extreme option that would lead to world economic chaos.

Increasing taxation on the rich or the middle class and poor is counterproductive. Our "guns and butter" policy has led to a ratio of national debt to gross national product exceeding World War II levels, when we were fighting really formidable enemies, not crazed Islamic radicals running retrograde societies. When push comes to shove, the electorate will choose the social programs over world power status, as happened in Britain after World War II. Our underlying problems, such as a weakened industrial base and the worst educated population in the West, are as formidable as those that forced Spain from its role as a world power. American youth are in such poor physical shape that if you were to restore the draft, it would take at least a year to get them in the same level of fitness as their grandfathers.

The United States is running out of options. Irrespective of who will win the election, I don't see any option but the inevitable: either defaulting on the national debt or hyperinflation. Both the welfare state and the warfare state will collapse, like it or not.

In the same way liberals call Rush Limbaugh a liar on a regular basis, yes. Tim Russert read a quote attributed to Ron Paul that said as much, and Ron Paul was alarmed. I don't suppose people are willing to make stuff up about Ron Paul, do you?

As far as I can tell, they both have oil fields. Ownership does make the resource disappear. Each should be free to sell the oil or keep it. I don't have a problem with that. The world has plenty of oil, more bubbling up all the time. The beauty of being American is the freedom to invent, while at the same time make use of resources at hand. At least it used to be.

While that is widely accepted as fact due to the media's lack of interest in using history as a guide in their reporting, it's not really true. It's just one of the bogus after-the-fact rationalizations for why al Qaeda's activities were "justified." Bin Laden, years before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and subsequent massing on the Saudi border compelled the Saudis to ask for our help, had already established himself as an America-hating SOB. Al Qaeda, "the worldwide jihad" after all, was born not after the Saudis asked for our help in the early 1990s but even earlier, in 1988.

OBL's mentor, Azzam, with whom he cofounded MAK even before al Qaeda, was already known for his prolific rants against the U.S. and for his assertions that the U.S. undermined the Mujahadeen in the war in Afghanistan against the USSR.

In the late 1980s before al Qaeda was born and just as things were looking bad for the Soviets in Afghanistan, Azzam and Osama bin Laden got in a big dispute over MAK's goal. OBL wanted to wage jihad simultaneously against the United States and the various insufficiently islamic Governments that ruled over muslim lands from which he had recruited dissidents- a multi-front war. Azzam in contrast, planned to focus more narrowly on completing the war in Afghanistan, which he viewed as a training ground for his ultimate goal. He intended to gather these veteran mujahadeen together for an assault not on the United States or other Arab governments, but against Israel, upon whose ruins Palestine could be formed.

Their disagreement was sufficiently bitter that OBL left MAK and took the more radical members with him, forming, with Jalaidan, "Al Qaeda." This was in 1988, so he was preparing for war with the United States years BEFORE Iraq started the Gulf War, before this well-publicized 1991 gripe about US toops in Saudi Arabia ever came to be.

It wasn't long after the break, about a year, that Azzam was killed in a bombing.

After Azzam's death, the opportunistic OBL immediately moved back in and took over MAK's global operations, absorbing most of Azzam's followers.

The way was now clear, in 1989, for OBL to begin planning his multifronted jihad against the United States and the unpious rulers of countries from whence his jihadists came. Azzam's goal of Palestine went on the back burner- the jihad bin Laden had in mind was far broader than that, and OBL's big "base" , al Qaeda, eventually became the umbrella under which allied terrorist groups would join, their leaders becoming voting members of al Qaeda's shurra councils of operations and financing.

Thanks. You took a lot of time and effort to articulate that synopsis. OBL is one of those cases where some clandestine operations would have been in order decades ago. Instead of castrating OBL we castrated ourselves.

Major wars and grandstanding tend to snowball. Not good. Our involvement with foreign entities should be predominantly trade-related. I hate to admit it, but I suspect we’ve lacked the “tact, poise, and reason” to “gently squeeze them.”

It is not so much the administrative costs of the civilian bureaucracy but the enormous transfer payments through Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security,and so forth that are the most burdensome. You could easily shut down, for instance, the Department of Education, but there is too much political pressure to prevent elimination of programs like Head Start. Then you have the enormous problem of servicing the national debt. This country has the benefit of historically low interest rates, a situation that will not last forever. The Fed does not operate in a vacuum and cannot hold rates down indefinitely. The effect of a 500-600 basis point increase in the cost of borrowed money would overshadow even a doubling of present military expenditures.

There is no political will to cut back on Federal transfer payments and welfare programs. Defaulting on government debt would lead to a worldwide financial crisis. Our national debt now exceeds our GNP. Even Obama would be compelled to massively increase military expenditures if Iran decides to block the Straits of Hormuz or North Korea attacks South Korea, both of which events would likely trigger a world war. Then there are the issues in the culture and economy: the consequences of permissiveness, a Third World level educational system, the collapse of our industrial base, drug abuse (legal and illegal), etc.

No Presidential candidate has an effective plan to address these issues, not Romney, not Gingrich, not Paul, not Santorum, and certainly not Obama. Reality will hit this nation as it did Britain, Spain, the USSR, and the Roman Empire. God help us.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.